Public School Education

by Michael Müller

I have shown that the State in America is Christian; that it cannot profess or play infidel. What right, then, has a Christian State to compel Christians to support infidel schools? Is not this compulsory support most violative of constitutional and religious rights? According to the Constitution of the State, "no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience." Now, the direction and control of the education of our children is clearly not only a duty, but a "right of conscience." This right, of course, belongs to all denominations, whether few or many. By what authority, then, does the State impose an established system of education at our expense against this constitutionally guaranteed right of conscience? I would like to know wherein this differs from an established church, such as has been lately removed, after having been imposed for centuries by State supremacy on the Irish people, without their consent.

It is, in fact, much worse; for though the Episcopal Church was not in accordance with the religious belief of a majority, yet it was, nevertheless, a Christian Church of a sect of high orthodox pretensions. But these "Public Schools," for whose support we and all other Christian denominations are taxed, are, by their own confession, utterly irreligious. The early Christians refused to burn even a little gum-rosin (incense) before the Pagan idols, and preferred rather to go to the lions; but we Christians, in this late day, and in what is boastingly called "Free America," are forced to pay taxes to support what is worse than heathen idols—schools from which the name of God is excluded, and, to our shame, we submit.

Referring to the wrong done to Catholics who cannot, in conscience, send their children to these schools, Judge Taft, of Ohio, said not long ago:

"This is too large a circumstance to be covered by the Latin phrase, 'De minimis non curat lex.' These Catholics (paying their proportion of the taxes) are constrained, every year, on conscientious grounds, to yield to others their right to one-third of the school-money, a sum averaging, at the present time, about $200,000 every year. That is to say, these people are punished every year, for believing as they do, to the extent of $200,000; and to that extent those of us who send our children to these excellent common schools become beneficiaries of the Catholic money. What a shame for Protestants to have their children educated for money robbed from Catholics! Mercantile life is supposed to cultivate, in some, a relish for hard bargains. But if it were a business matter, and not a matter of religious concern, could business men be found willing to exact such a pecuniary advantage as this? I think it would shock the secular conscience!"

The State, in creating free schools, is like the Turkish Bashaw's mode of making pork cheap. He first compelled the Jews to buy it at a rate fixed by himself; but the Jews had no use for it, so it was left for every one to pick up at will. Indeed, what is a school worth when a man will pay a premium to be exempt from sending his children to it? The State, boasting of its splendid Public Schools, is also like that poor fellow who wore a gold watch and boasted of it. "Where did you get it?" he was asked. "I got it as a present," he answered. Then he related how one day he met with a rich man: "I knocked him down," he said, "put my foot on his throat, and said: 'Give me your watch, or I kill you.' So he gave it to me." "Pay your taxes for the erection and support of our Public Schools," says the lord State to the poor and to the rich, "or I sell your property." What a shame! The Catholics ask no favor, but they insist on their rights. In this country, whose discoverer was a Catholic—in this country, where the principle of religious toleration was first established by a Catholic nobleman, the famous and chivalric Calvert, Earl of Baltimore—in this country, whose people are largely indebted for their freedom to the armed coöperation and generous aid of Catholic France—in this country, whose constitutional freedom has been struck down by the malevolent Puritanism which in one breath declares that Catholics are opposed to education, and in the next insists that they shall be deprived of the means necessary for its maintenance—in this country, I say, we Catholics are entitled to equal rights, and to a fair share, to a just apportionment of the annual amount raised by taxation for the support of our charitable and educational institutions. We ask only what is fair, what is just, what is right; and we base our demand upon principle, and not upon the ground of favors granted or received.

If the State taxes us, as a religious and Christian people, for the education of our children, it must give us a Christian education. If it cannot, or will not do that, it must cease to tax us, and leave the education of our children to ourselves. If the Christian gives to Cæsar what belongs to Cæsar, he has a right to demand of Cæsar that he allow him to give to God what belongs to God.

Again, the Constitution says, "That no person shall be compelled to erect, support, or attend any place of public worship, nor support any minister of the gospel, or teacher of religion," etc.; and it says, "That no private property ought to be taken or applied to public use without just compensation." Now let us apply these constitutional principles to State-schools, and see if our compulsory support of them is not violative of our constitution as well as common law. Why is it "that no person shall be compelled to erect, support, or attend any place of public worship, nor support any minister of religion"? Simply because he "don't want to"; and he don't want to, "because it is against his conscience"; and "no human authority," says the Constitution, "can control or interfere with the rights of conscience"; that is all the reason, and no other. The State believes that all places of worship, and ministers of the gospel, are good; but, knowing that there is a difference of opinion among the people on that subject, wisely leaves such matters to their choice, and will not take private property for public use without compensation. Why, then, is private property taken for Public Schools without compensation? We cannot use them in conscience, and we have seen there is no lawful power or authority to "control or interfere with conscience." I ask, then, if I am not right in stating that our compulsory support of an odious and infidel system of Public Schools, against our conscience and against our consent, is not far worse than the support of any form of church establishment?

Moreover, according to the Constitution, "No preference can ever be given by law to any church, sect, or mode of worship." This section is often quoted as the authority and reason for excluding religious teachings from the Public Schools; but, strange enough, it is flagrantly violated by the present system, giving a preference by law to the unbelievers, and thereby discriminating against the believers of all sects and denominations. For, after all, there can be but two churches, or, if you please, sects, in the eye of the State—the believers and unbelievers. To the former belong the various Christian denominations, and to the latter those who deny and protest against all religious faith and belief. Those certainly are the last, and for that reason, if for no other, are the best or worst (as people may choose to view them) sect. It is, then, this last product, this "caput mortuum" of all sects and believers of every shade and kind, that is favored by the no-belief system of education.

"Though the State may not give any preference to any church or sect," it is not, on that account, authorized to ignore and reject all; but, on the contrary, is obliged in justice to assist all or none, as, by this course alone, it avoids giving preference to any. This is what the law contemplates, and the only course that comports with reason and justice. If it suits the last sect—the unbelievers or no-believers—to exclude morals or religion from schools, all right; let them keep on as at present. But if it suits the various other churches or sects to modify the system to suit their conscientious views and beliefs, to apply their own proportion of the school tax for that purpose, it is their undeniable and lawful right.

There is one view in which the public will agree in regard to the Public Schools: it is that they cost too much money. For the management of the godless Public Schools there is a costly array of "Commissioners," and "Inspectors," and "Trustees," and "Superintendents," and "Secretaries of Boards," and "Central Officers," all in league with "Contractors," to make "a good thing"—so-called—out of the plan. We have, now, contractors for buildings and repairs, contractors for furniture, contractors for books, contractors for furnaces, contractors for fuel, contractors even for pianos, and all making money out of it. The "Boards" that give the contracts do not make any money by way of commissions, do they? Ah! you know full well that hundreds of thousands of dollars are annually spent or squandered in running these Public Schools, and which are recommended, in a particular manner, for their economy!